4.  The applicant, Mr Jan Grzona, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Radom.
5.  On 1 February 1993 the applicant and his wife lodged a motion with the Radom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for dissolution of co-ownership of a civil association (zniesienie współwłasności spółki cywilnej) and for division of its property (podział majątku spółki cywilnej). One M.J. was also a co-owner and a party to the proceedings. A petrol station was a subject of the civil association’s business activity.
6.  On 19 April 1994, during a hearing, the District Court allowed a motion for an expert report on the value of the property to be provided by an accountant. The report was submitted on 20 February 1995.
7.  On an unspecified date M.J. submitted additional documents that were later included in the expert’s report. The applicant complained before the district court that M.J. forged the documents and that the expert report should be rejected.
8.  As a result of the allegations, the prosecution service opened criminal proceedings against M.J.
9.  On 30 April 1996 the Radom District Court stayed the civil proceedings for the dissolution of co-ownership and the division of its property pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against M.J.
10.  The criminal proceedings against M.J. were terminated on 14 December 2001 by a final judgment of the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). M.J. was found guilty of submitting forged documents to the court in the civil proceedings in question.
11.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged a motion to resume the civil proceedings.
12.  On 20 September 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. The case file received a new number (V GNs 3/02).
13.  On 1 October 2003 a new expert report on expenses incurred by co‑owners of the association was submitted to the domestic court.
14.  On 2 February 2004 the Radom District Court delivered a decision (postanowienie). The court granted the ownership of the property to M.J. and his spouse and ordered M.J. to pay the applicant and his wife an equivalent of their share in the property.
15.  Both parties appealed. On 29 July 2004 the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
16.  On 13 October 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s motion for another expert report on the evaluation of the property and the parties’ shares in the company. The report was submitted to the court on 25 July 2006.
17.  On 28 November 2006 the Radom District Court delivered a second first‑instance decision, granting the ownership of the petrol station to M.J. and his spouse and ordered him to pay to the applicant and his wife an equivalent of their share in the property in ten instalments.
18.  The applicant appealed. In the course of the appeal proceedings the applicant lodged a motion for an additional expert’s report. The report was submitted on 4 June 2007.
19.  On 19 October 2007 the Radom Regional Court merely changed the wording of the decision of 28 November 2006 and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.
20.  On 28 May 2008 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal.
21.  On 16 February 2009 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought a finding that the State Treasury was liable for damage caused to him by the domestic courts which had conducted the civil proceedings in his case for an unreasonably long time. He further sought a payment of compensation for costs incurred during the impugned proceedings and for the loss of earnings.
22.  On 21 October 2009 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action.
23.  The Regional Court found that the applicant’s claim fell to be examined under Article 417 of the Civil Code. It noted that section 16 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) explicitly provided that parties who had not lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings under section 5 of the Act might claim compensation on the basis of Article 417 of the Civil Code after the relevant proceedings had ended. However, in the Regional Court’s view the applicant failed to prove that the unduly long procedure had been caused by the courts’ unlawful actions or omissions as required by Article 6 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, he failed to prove that the manner in which the courts had proceeded was flawed or was an effect of mismanagement or intentional failure on the part of the courts.
24.  The first-instance court admitted that the proceedings, taken out of the context of the case, had been long. However, the unusually complex character of the case, caused by the applicant’s and his partner’s lack of diligence in conducting their business, influenced the length of the proceedings. The court took into account the procedural activity of both parties as well as the fact that the trial had been stayed for over six years pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against M.J. The court further noted that the applicant had filed a large number of procedural motions in the course of the proceedings, inter alia, a number of motions for expert reports to be prepared and a request to disqualify a judge.
25.  The court dismissed the applicant’s claims for payment of compensation as unrelated to the proceedings and unsupported by evidence.
26.  The applicant appealed. On 26 January 2010 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.